A kid’s game Street
children play cricket on
an empty road in the
heart of Kolkata

THE UPROAR OVER Britain’s
parliamentary future,
following revelations of expense
account manipulations by MPs, shows
that even the oldest and most central
of institutions must embrace social
change or become irrelevant. Sports
forms and organizations have always
been a direct product of the societies
from which they emerge and are
subject to changing tastes, moral
codes and conventions – the decline
in popularity of, say, squash racquets
and snooker demonstrate that well.

2007

INDIAN PREMIER
LEAGUE
Cricket’s latest
experiment has
more money and
fewer runs

‘IPL stands to be one
of the most effective
bodies amongst all
the boards’LALIT MODI

Global cricket has perhaps sensed
that better than most, as demonstrated
by the rapid growth of the
T20 form. The very term ‘T20’ has
mimicked the popularity of the year
2020 as a future planning date target.
Even so, there is still much cricket
might do to ensure its relevance as a
social pillar.

Tradition is a powerful force in
most cultures and protecting tradition
in cricket is important in order to
guarantee it a future. Most tours now,
however, do little to stimulate local
interest. Ashes tours of old, in both
England and Australia, had a series of
state and county matches that were
well-attended and gave good exposure
to a wider range of players. They
attracted more people to matches at
cheaper prices. Tradition comes at a
premium these days – a ticket to a day at the Lords
test now costs more than $100. We need to have
more people watching at lower prices if cricket is to
remain a relevant and accessible sport.

Similarly, grassroots cricket needs more recognition.
Most grade competitions in the world have as
much high drama as the televised
version and those dramas are more
relevant to the average person. National
grade championship competitions
would do more to capitalise on
that interest, especially in social
quarters that are underprivileged. Not
long ago a Melbourne newspaper ran a story about a junior side full of Vietnamese and
other refugee kids. Promoting their games would be
a great long-term investment in cricket because
such actions broaden the sport’s social relevance
and inclusiveness.

At a time when top-line cricket has become a
business rather than a game, is it
sacrilege to suggest that less cricket
would be better? For some years now
it has been almost impossible for anyone
other than the most fanatical
devotee to keep up with who is playing
whom and where — and why! Less
top-line cricket would allow space to promote the lower levels, which is where cricket’s
social survival and relevance resides. It might also
allow for international sides like West Indies and
Zimbabwe to fully rebuild themselves.

We need to have
more people
watching at lower
prices if cricket is to
remain a relevant
and accessible sport

Making cricket more relevant, however, does not
mean dumbing it down as an art form. The T20 version
has its place, no doubt, but it can never be the
main game because it has no social relevance whatsoever.
It is an advertising vehicle rather than a
game and advertising vehicles have a notoriously
short shelf life. The core of the game has to remain
relevant and there are signs that it is disappearing.

Should we spend time proselytizing cricket and,
for example, “getting it
into China”? Maybe.
Football’s history, in this
case, is instructive. It is
now a global game because
it somehow created
meaning wherever
it went. As Newcastle,
West Brom and Middlesborough
headed for
relegation there was talk about how this paralleled
the decline of England’s northwest as an industrial
centre. It is hard to imagine such a comment being
made about a cricket team anywhere and that
should be cause for reflection. If the game’s heartland
is becoming socially dislocated then no number
of “new” players will reverse the trend.

The T20 version
has its place, but it
can never be the
main game because
it has no social
relevance

One answer is to put even more effort into the
second layer of natural cricketing nations because the
feeder lines into the top level are just too narrow.
Whenever people talk of, say, Australia being too
dominant, they are really saying that the game’s
development is lopsided. Massive transformation is
required, yet cricket is always different. It is ironic
that as English football is now swamped by ‘foreign’
players, cricket is fiddling with the Kolpak provisions
to make such entrance even harder. While there are
some reasons for that, the fundamentally different
approaches of the codes is instructive.

These days I sit writing in a room overlooking
what has to be one of the most expensive cricket
grounds in the world, just a kilometer or so from
Westminster and belonging to a public school. It
is a privileged place, but it is a reminder that it was
from such places that cricket spread round
the Empire, to people who then adapted its form
and traditions.

By furthering rather than frustrating that natural
process, and by emphasizing the game’s meaning
rather than its business opportunities, we will
help guarantee cricket’s survival as a meaningful
social organism.